1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the additional determination is not a defect in the construction but a defect in the construction, and that the part of the cell's tent, etc. (hereinafter "marine") is not a defect in the construction, and it is not a defect in the construction, but a defect in the construction, and it is a subject of the liability for damages due to default.

The criteria to distinguish between the failure to complete construction works from the failure to complete construction works and the failure to complete construction works in the course of the construction works shall be deemed to have completed the construction works if the last process of the construction works is not completed. However, if the construction works are to be repaired due to incomplete construction works, it shall be interpreted that the last process of the construction works is completed, but it is not only that there is any defect in the object, and it shall be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the construction contract in question and the principle of trust and good faith.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Da42822 delivered on February 23, 1996). In light of the purport of the above legal doctrine, as seen earlier, the instant construction was delivered to the Plaintiff upon completion of all repair of defects at the latest around October 2010, and the final completion money was paid between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and all settlement of the instant construction work was completed while paying the final completion money.

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the both sides of the Plaintiff’s assertion, such as both sides and ceiling, are not a non-construction but a defect.

In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff paid 64,020,000 won, which is the full remainder of the construction to the Defendant on December 27, 2010, both sides and ceiling.